If world domination is the peak, how far can the Australians fall?

As Australia's cricketers gingerly work off their hangovers over the next few days, they will face the kind of sobering questions that, in the current climate, will seem as popular as prune juice at a World Cup after-party.

Did the world just witness the zenith of Australian cricket? And, if so, will the journey from the peak take the form of a gentle decline or a sheer drop down a jagged cliff face?

Ricky Ponting gave a telling insight into Australian cricket's delicate position when, in the space of an hour yesterday, he described his side's dominant performance at the World Cup as something "never seen before in international cricket", then outlined the challenges faced by the team in the wake of the retirements of Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Justin Langer and Damien Martyn.

That may seem akin to winning a foreign lottery, only to dwell on the tax implications. But the Australian captain is a realist, and with four senior Test positions to fill, he appreciates the complex set of circumstances the next 12 months will bring.

"I actually see it as one of the most exciting phases of my career," Ponting said. "The most important thing is that the older guys in the team have to keep maintaining their high standards, and if we have to carry some of the younger guys through for a while, so be it."

Australian cricket observers have long dreaded the retirements of Warne and McGrath. Finding a replacement for one bowler was always going to prove difficult; replacing both a virtual impossibility.

Still, there is hope. In the fast bowling ranks, Australia appears to be well served at present, and even enters the new season with the option of a breakneck new-ball combination of Brett Lee and Shaun Tait to complement the ever-accurate Stuart Clark.

As for spinners, Australia will hope that Stuart MacGill, at age 36, will be able to bridge the gap between Warne and the next generation of wrist spinners, headed by the newly contracted Cullen Bailey.

But, even with the best contingency plans, will Australia's next generation be able to sustain the team's run of success?

"It is definitely going to be a challenge," said vice-captain Adam Gilchrist. "But we're too well set up. We've got such a good infrastructure. We're the world leaders big-time in that area alone, let alone every other area that we dominate the world in."

Michael Hussey, who, along with Ponting, will form the heart of the Australian top order for years to come, was more cautious.

"You can't replace these guys," Hussey said. "It's going to take time for new players to come in, settle into international cricket and make their mark."

After a period in which the Australian team has gauged itself by the number of cups, trophies and (replica) urns in its cabinet, a new formula for success may be required - at least for a while.

In the meantime, Ponting, his senior players and incoming coach Tim Nielsen will all be aiming to guide the team through the current tumult and into another period of sustained excellence.

Tonksters, it is time gaze into your crystal balls...

- Alex Brown

Posted
by SMH OnlineMay 4, 2007 10:33 AM

LATEST COMMENTS

You won't see a fall for the next 20 years, they may lose the odd game or series (not often tough).
The big problem is the very weak opposition in world cricket at the moment.
There are only about 3 sides in the world that would be competitive in the Aussie Shield competition (sorry Pura Cup).
The depth of Aussie talent is enormous compared to other countries.

Posted by: middo185 on May 4, 2007 11:14 AM

I reckon we'll be on top for a long time yet, mainly because we've got a real embarrassment of young pace bowling talent. I reckon the eighth or tenth best pace bowler in Oz would be able to walk into any other country's Test team. We've also got a fine collection of up-and-coming young batsemen.

The spin bowling is the major hole to fill - none of the young uns in Pura Cup look very convincing. But then it only takes one or two unexpected finds to fill that gap.

Posted by: derrida derider on May 4, 2007 11:37 AM

I think we'll just have to wait and see what Tait and possibly Hilfenhaus can do to make up for McGrath's absense and Lee's mediocrity because really only Clark (who's not young) looks a banker at this stage. As for the spnners, MacGill aside, other countries look to have players to at least match Australia's. Sure the batting looks strong but that's only half the battle. I'll also be keeping a keen eye on how Gilchrist goes keeping to what's likely to be a more wayward attack.
In terms of who will rival Australia? It could be any of England, Sri Lanka, South Africa, India or Pakistan; which one (if any) gets its act together sufficiently to capitalise on Australian transition is anyone's guess. I personally don't think England are that far away but with a new coach, a dire need of a new captain and possible scars from the recent 0-5 down under, there are many question marks. That said, I think you can pretty well name 8 or 9 of England's first choice side - and none of those are veterans - which isn't a bad basis to build from.

Posted by: disco dave on May 4, 2007 12:28 PM

well, a rebel tour to a breakaway bloc could weaken the team.

but there's probably only a 5% chance of that.

the loss of Warne reduces any team by 10-20%. add 5-10 for McGrath.

then we have rule changes (like the limit on bouncers.) maybe something that targets the Aussie's batting strengths - like limiting the number of lefies. or banning squash balls. changing the bats. doctored wickets. hometown umps (but that would boost Australia at home?)

possibly any cycle would be a slow one - loss of confidence/market share for sponsors = less money = less money for academy = less talented kids.

but I doubt it. even if Australia declines by 25% due to ALL of the above factors, the rest of the world would still have to improve to beat them.

Australia's 2nd choice team would dominate world cricket assuming they don't have to play the first string side. Wouldn't be such a bad idea giving them test status, the quality of the players in that side would be world class and deserve some test matches.
a 3rd choice team would be very competitive as well. but wouldn't dominate.
Middo is right, there is far too much depth in the australian ranks for the era to end.

Posted by: Brendan on May 4, 2007 1:01 PM

I don't think there will be too many countries to upstage Australia. Yes, there will be the odd match or series loss. It will take the new guys some time to make their mark at the international level. Australian cricket is well served by foresight and infrastructure.

Posted by: Tarun on May 4, 2007 1:07 PM

I feel we will still be the #1 nation for the forseeable future, but we will lose more series away from home. I still think we will be virtually unbeatable in Aus. Leg spin is the only area of concern - Macgill bowled poorly this year and the young leggies are 2-3 years away at best from being Test cricketers. I'm more concerned with world cricket - other than England, can't see any nation that has the potential to be strong over an extended timeframe. West Indies are shot, possibly for good. Cricket in South Africa is in decline due to the emphasis on soccer these days, the sub-continent teams will be strong at home but always poor away, and NZ don't have enough population for a strong team.

Posted by: The Blaze on May 4, 2007 1:07 PM

windies for dominant back in the 70's 80's... aussies will fall like them too...

Posted by: matt g on May 4, 2007 1:09 PM

$20 bucks says cricket won't even be around in 20 years time. It's novelty is wearing off fast. There are only so many times you can flog someone without it getting boring.

Posted by: Ryan on May 4, 2007 1:19 PM

I thought they were old and vulnerable last season but proved far from it.

In the batting they have less oldies and the others can be assumed to be in or approaching their prime.

Gilly's glovework can be dodgy but it appears his ability to fearlessly bash attacks outweighs
the possibility of a spill or two.

That said will he and Hayden continue beyond 2007/8?

The bowling, although at this point, mortal, seems healthy enough. As someone suggested they might just blast them out.

Probably they will win most and lose the odd one as they rebuild as they go.

They are supremely confident and intimidating so the method of attack ( and defence ) employed by their immediate opponents might give a glimpse of the future.

Maybe Mad Buchanan should try his methods with another team to even things up, at the same time testing Warney's theory that a coach is something you get to the game in?

Posted by: Pope Paul VII on May 4, 2007 1:24 PM

I have already stated the lack of depth in international cricket. England and Sri Lanka are the only two real threats to the Australian domination.

But even those two have struggled to come with in a bulls roar of the Australians.

I expect the Australians to naturally struggle to adjust to he loss of Warne and McGrath, but Muralitharan and Vaas does not have long to go either, and we seen how easily the Australians discarded the Sri Lankans - with and with out these two.

Having said that, it is quite possible Sri Lanka or India could defeat Australia this summer. This is the best opportunity they are going to get. But traditionally, neither the Sri Lankans or Indians have been able to handle the bouncey Australian pitches and its quite possible that Tait could find his radar during this summer.

England on the other hand can only hope and pray Flintoff is still around and the batting holds strong and true. As good as Pietersen is, he can not be expected to carry the side all the time - it will soon wear him out.

Apart from Panesar, there is not enough depth in the English bowling to convince me they can seriously challenge Australia in the 2009 Ashes series. Much of the personel for England could have changed before then.

Australia have defeated England in the past with sides considered 'weaker' on paper.

But I believe the Australian depth has been underestimated. An attack of Stuart Clark, Ben Hilfenhaus, Brett Lee and Shaun Tait sounds quite dangerous, throw in MacGill and possibly Cullen Bailey in to the mix, Australia look okay. These are not bad players by any means.

It remains to be seen how seriously the ICC takes the issue of having only two nations dominating World Cricket for the last 30 years.

The pre Windies era was dominated by Ian Chappell's Australians, who did not lose a series under five years of his leadership. Then of course World Series Cricket came and ushered in the Windies undefeated for 15 years era, followed by the current Australian domination.

It would be delusional to think a rapid decline of Australian could happen like it did in the 80's.

And before Nowhere Man nabs me, I just to clear up, that I am a wannabe Ian Chappell - so **** off!

Posted by: Warren Cooper on May 4, 2007 1:36 PM

Its not a question of talent. If it was nobody would ever beat India. Its mainly about money and facilities.

The answer is Australia are not likely to fall very far. There are only 3 countries in the world that REALLY care about Cricket. Australia, India and Pakistan. Two are poverty stricken while the other has possibly the most sophisticated government funded sporting system in the world.

Cricket is a second string sport in England, South Africa, New Zealand etc and always will be. Therefore Australia can probably dominate for as long as it wants to. Just don't expect anyone else to particularly care.

Just how long will Aussie crowds continue to turn up and watch Harlem Globetroorter style one sided games though?

Posted by: Brian on May 4, 2007 2:02 PM

Australia will inevitably fall from the top, but they won't ever reach rock bottom Windies-style. Maybe drop to 4th or 5th.

But the reality is that Australia will always be up there. In England, South Africa and NZ cricket isn't on the same pedestal as here. In the other test countries the game isn't accessible for everyone, either through poverty, poor infrastructure or both.

So I forsee Australia losing more (especially away), but we will be at or near the top for many years. Until India catches up with the 1st-world maybe?

Posted by: Rob on May 4, 2007 2:32 PM

The greatest concern is not for how Australia will fare over the next few years. Cricket is very popular here and perhaps only the Asian countries exceed that popularity.

As the leaders on the field, we need to take the lead off the field to ensure that the global game improves. So much money is flowing into the game via TV & sponsorship, yet how much of that is flowing into grass roots development in Cricket`s developing nations? Bugger all I suspect.

For world cricket to improve, the infrastructure requires massive investment. Training facilities and equipment, academies, etc as well as first class coaches need to be provided in the countries that don`t have them.

For the `minnows`, we need to make sure that they have everything they need to improve and a four yearly flogging in ODIs at the hands of the established nations isn`t it.

The minnows need to be invited to participate in neighbouring countries` 2nd tier domestic first class competitions so that they are regularly competing against ambitious young cricketers.

For example, include Ireland, Scotland & Netherlands into the 2nd division of the English county competition. Kenya, Namibia, etc can go into the South African competitions.

I’d say the same about Bermuda & Canada joining the Windies but they`ve done it before at some level and the Windies are in disarray at the moment and really need to help themselves before they go helping others.

There doesn`t seem to be a logical country (from a geographic perspective) to join the Cricket Australia Cup so an alternative might be inviting promising players from overseas to join the various state teams. In addition, further players could join the club cricket competitions in the capital cities for more experience.

As these players / countries improve, they can move up a tier to compete at even higher levels which should be a springboard to gaining test status.

Without this sort of commitment to develop the game globally, I fear that cricket will not grow and the playing stocks in other countries won`t improve.

Posted by: yabba on May 4, 2007 2:39 PM

I was one who didn't expect Australia to win the world cup. I thought the world at least had some top class batsmen who could provide effective opposition to the bowling attack that Australia took to the Windies. I was wrong.

There'll be no precipitous fall from the top position for Australia, as there's bugger all competition out there.

Posted by: Andrew on May 4, 2007 2:55 PM

Well we might even see Australia lose a home series although in the short term I think we'll see a lot more drawn tests without Warne & McGrath. The loss of both these guys cannot be underestimated. Obviously there are some guaranteed wickets that can't be counted but how many of Gillespie's, Lee's, Clark's etc test wickets have been due to pressure at the other end? There'll be a few more there for them to take but it might be a bit harder to get them.

Then you've got the loss of Warne as a first-slipper, lower-order batsman and the best cricket brain in the side. Not to mention the guidance and leadership McGrath brings. As Punter points out, big time for himself, Gilly, Haydos, Hussey & Lee.

Their last series defeat at home was in 92/93 and that was only by one run! I think this will be the end of complacent Aussie fans urging on the opposition to "make things interesting".

Posted by: Phil Emery was honest on May 4, 2007 3:05 PM

Good call middo, although not sure it will last 20 years.

Australia will remain at our very near the peak due to the weakness of opposition as much, if not more, than due to our own strength.

Have a look round the world ranks and there just aren't many world class players. Almost all world class players from other countries are on the out and no-one is even close to replacing them.

The only ones I can think of who are not going away in the next 4 years are Murali and Vettori.

Lara, Tendulkar, Pollock, Kallis, Sanath, Vaas, Kumble, Sehwag, Dravid, Fleming etc - all on the skids or gone already. While some of the one trick ponies such as Flintoff, Peterson, Gibbs, Smith, Bond etc just aren't consistent enough to build world class teams around.

Meanwhile, for the next 4+ years Australia has Ponting, Hussey, Clarke (x2), Symonds, Lee who would walk into any XI plus worthy up and comers like Hodge, Hilfenhaus, Jaques, Voges, Johnson, Drew... the list goes on.

Our only weakness will be spin bowling which means we could get pumped in the subcontinent if the quicks can't adapt.

Posted by: anthony on May 4, 2007 3:12 PM

Weren't we saying the same thing after Steve Waugh, Mark Waugh, etc left the game?

I don't think it will be a problem because thankfully this time coincides with arguably one of the weakest periods in world cricket over the past 50 years.

Who is really there to take the title? Daylight???

For the game's sake, it may be good for the Aussies to come back to the field a little bit.

I think England will start to hit their straps in 2 years as their young side hits peak age. Until then, plenty more one-sided matches.

Posted by: matt on May 4, 2007 5:20 PM

Although it may seem inconsequential- a lot of it may have to do with whoever gets the gig as coach. Undoubtedly the toughest job woudl be managing the ego problem in the locker room (something the marto incident showed us). The only thing that could undo the aussies would be this factor- snippets of which I think we've seen in Ashes 05 and NZ 07...

Posted by: Josh S on May 4, 2007 5:54 PM

Sorry PW et al, can't agree with you. I expected Aus to win the ashes comfortably (but I admit, not that comfortably) but it's inevitable that the loss of Warne and McGrath is going to show. I don't think the batting is as strong as you do either. Clarke Hussey Symonds Gilchrist and Watson. Great on flat tracks. I predict that the 2009 Ashes will be decided by Flintoff Harmison Hoggard and Simon Jones - just as in 2005

Posted by: Mike on May 4, 2007 7:20 PM

This summer's Aussie test and ODI teams were right up there with the best teams ever.
No one will beat Australia next summer, well not in a test match anyway. It's way too hard to bowl us out twice, but there will be more drawn matches ( can't win 5-0 every series)
After that, Hayden and Gilchrist will retire, but I think a new opener, Clark (next captain), and Watson will step up (Clark at 4, Watson at 6). Haddin can also bat. So batting wise no real problems
The young bowlers will get a good workout next summer, and there are plenty of quicks, seamers to choose from. There are also quite a few spinners emerging, but Mc Gill will probably get the job, unless Ricky vetoes it...
The 2009 Ashes series in England will be a ripper as England will get better (and tougher). The conditions should suit our seamers...
King Ricky will keep amassing runs until he gets bored with it, maybe after the 2009 Ashes series, unless he does a Tiger Woods and hangs around to chalk up more runs than any batsman will get for generations...
All sounds very exciting to me...

Posted by: Roy on May 4, 2007 8:11 PM

other teams standards have gone down measurably. I dont think any world team has a quality spinner other than Sri lanka now that warne is gone. Vettori is getting old for NZ and is easily smashed these days. Our best chance of winning test matches is through an all pace attack- conventional swing(hilfenhaus), seam(Clark), reverse swing (Tait and Brett Lee) and a few all rounders thrown in like Luke butterworth or Andrew McDonald.

Posted by: Halba on May 4, 2007 8:26 PM

I think the Aussies will come back to the pack, certainly in the short term, although perhaps not enough to lose the #1 tag. It's hard to say who would overtake them though. India can't win outside the sub-continent, Sri Lanka have an ageing side, Pakistan, as usual, are in disarray, New Zealand are ageing and don't have the talent and Bangladesh would be happy to climb out of the cellar. That leaves England and South Africa neither of whom have shown the necessary bottle lately.

Posted by: James on May 5, 2007 4:31 AM

As a passionate South African, I can say I can not see the end of the Australian domination. We can not even dominate the one day side of international cricket for 2 months, yet Australia has dominated one day cricket for since 1999 and claimed back their number one ranking in ruthless style.

At the moment, no side comes close to Australia - I too seriously doubt the lack of depth in international cricket.

South Africa have been frustratingly disappointing and the game is starting suffer, almost on par with Australian cricket in the 80's.

I am not convinced about England, they are too hot and cold and not consistent enough. Sri Lanka are good candidates but I am not sure how they will go as far as Murali is concerned.

But even I can not see Australia slipping down to forth spot as Rob says - there is no chance of that.

Can't you see the depth in your own nation, it makes the rest of us quite envious. You have the best coaches, the best facilities, the best first class competition, the best of every thing as far as cricket is concerned.

And good on you, I wish I could say the same for the Saffers. Critic's of the Australians from their own nation waiting for them to fall seriously do not know what they are wishing for or talking about.

Its not like a domestic competition where you can trade and draft players like they do in football. Its pot luck! Good international cricketers do not come a long as often as they used to.
Warne and McGrath are once in a lifetime players. And its going to take more than those two retiring to end the Australian domination.

If that is what the rest of the world has been waiting for, then we are deluded.

Australia made light work of the World Cup with only McGrath and no Warne, and McGrath was no where near his best. And that was only one day cricket.

Did you see what they did to England in the Ashes, or was the 5 - 0 result just a smokescreen? Warne was not as potent as he could have been. It was Stuart Clark who did most of the damage in that series.

If you can not see the signs for yourselves, then seriously, as I have said before, Australian's do not deserve a champion team. You are too quick in desiring to see them fall. Sam and Rob are amongst the worst.

If it was South Africa I know we'd be relishing it.

Posted by: Phil Sargeson on May 5, 2007 9:35 AM

No one said this after the Waughs left. In fact, the Waughs were hurried out because we had the likes of Damien Martyn, Darren Lehmann, Michael Hussey and Simon Katich, plus youngsters Watson and Clarke, pushing for opportunities. Brett Lee is dangerous, but he is also expensive and inconsistent; Tate will be moreso. MacGill likewise. Clarke is the only consistently threatening pressure-builder (in the McGrath/Gillespie/Warne style) left, and he's 32? Australia's attack will have its moments, but there's no way we can expect it to come anywhere near the dominant levels of the past 10 years. Australia's batting will remain strong, though Gilchrist is on the wane (in terms of consistency, he still plays the occasional jaw-dropper). With Gilcrhist's gradual slide in mind, I think a concern is Australia's tail; for years Australia have been safe from ever being routed because, when the top order have occasionally failed, the tail have made big runs. Gilchrist was consistently brilliant, Lee and Warne very capable, and Gillespie capable of dogged resistance. Lee aside, a bottom order of MacGill, Clarke and Tait does not offer the same resistance. Will Australia plummet? No, but the field will certainly be levelled.

Posted by: Craig on May 5, 2007 9:52 AM

I think people here are underestimating the gap left by Warne and McGrath. The Australian batsmen have been in very few pressure situations lately so we really do not know how good they are. Australia's one-day side seems pretty strong at the moment but you think in tests Autralia's batsmen will come under a lot more pressure as the opposition batsmen will be able to score more runs.

In 2003 the Indians came very close to beating Australia at home. You guys have short memories! If a few decisions went Kumble's way in Aus second innings then things might have been quite different.

Definitly Austrlia will find overseas wins, especially in the sub-continent and the Windies more difficult to obtain . However, I think Aus will continue to thrash England...

Posted by: Zubes on May 5, 2007 11:37 AM

to Matt G and to all the other armchair critics ( to which I am one also, nowadays )

The Windies fall was due to the lack of developing younger players in the guise of a cricket acadamey whilst they were dominating everyone, plus basketball ( us whiteys can't jump after all ). We have been enjoying the success we have had due to the infrastructure that has been in place for some time now and other countries are doing now also. I hope that their efforts will also come to fruition as well. What a great game Cricket is.

Posted by: scott on May 6, 2007 1:04 AM

Phil Sargeson, what was that swipe about? Do I know you?

Although you got my number. I do actually desire to see Australia fall. Because I'm a cricket fan first and foremost, and the accident of where I'm born comes somewhat after. So yes, I'd like more competitive cricket over a champion Australian team.

Seriously though, you can't put me with Sam. Look at my composite Windies/Australia team in the other blog, I'm the only one who includes more Aussies!

Posted by: Rob on May 7, 2007 8:42 AM

You are too quick in desiring to see them fall. Sam and Rob are amongst the worst.

If it was South Africa I know we'd be relishing it.

Posted by: Phil Sargeson at May 5, 2007 9:35 AM

My apologies for wanting to watch competitive cricket. In future I'll just hope for 5-two day tests every series. Forgive me for desiring a challenge every now and then for the Australian cricket team.

And Rob? Of course I put more Windies in - I think they were a slightly better side so that's why I picked more of them. It's not rocket science.

Posted by: Sam on May 7, 2007 10:13 AM

Sam and Rob, obviously you missed the point of the last line of my post, if it was the South Africans dominating for as long as the Australians, we'd be relishing it.

We wouldn't be crying because no one can beat us, that is what you Australians do. You're pathetic. Do you think the Windies were doing that? They actually went in to mourning the moment they lost in 1995 - they obviously wanted to continue winning.

And incidently if the Windies were still dominating or another side was dominating, would you be complaining then?

The moment Australia lose you say they're crap and everyone needs to be sacked because they are all glorified part timers, selfish, bad coaching or whatever, and the moment they win, you say there is no competition. Do us all favour and give us a break!

Australian sport fans are like spoilt brats, you have the best of everything - you're almost on par with the U.S as far as sports science is concerned, yet you don't what you want.

Geez, I hope South Africa does improve and start to defeat Australia and see South Africa dominate for a few years, maybe for a decade, just to see what you sorry sad lot would have to say.

Hypocritical is really the word that describes it all. Blatant hypocrisy!

With attitudes like yours, to quote Bob Hawke, you deserve to be at the arse end of the world in world sport.

And Rob, just because I am a South African cricket fan, I am not entitled to an opinion because I don't carry the self righteous tag of a "Im a cricket fan first ..."?

I might live in Australia but I don't forget where I am from.

Posted by: Phil Sargeson on May 7, 2007 12:16 PM

Phil - your entitled to an opinion, but I don't see why you need to drag my name into it. Or implicitly call me a pathetic and hypocritical spolit brat.

Posted by: Rob on May 7, 2007 12:39 PM

I am sorry to have offended you Rob, and take my words back as I read you are an English supporter, or I understand you sound like an English supporter - correct me if I am wrong.

Sam on other hand - I don't know where he comes from with half the stuff he says.

But I think a lot of the stuff on here I read in regards to Australia's domination is a little silly. Like if England was dominating and had been dominating as long as Australia, would you be complaining - I don't think so.

I agree the ICC has gone to sleep as far as the development of the game is concerned. A lot of Test nations have fallen along way behind the Australians. England are trying to catch up but Australia just seem to be raising the bar - even with out Shane Warne.

Posted by: Phil Sargeson on May 7, 2007 1:29 PM

The moment Australia lose you say they're crap and everyone needs to be sacked because they are all glorified part timers, selfish, bad coaching or whatever, and the moment they win, you say there is no competition. Do us all favour and give us a break!
Posted by: Phil Sargeson at May 7, 2007 12:16 PM

I've never said anything of the sort, and the reason the West Indies were in mourning in 95 was because those in the know knew what was coming - 12 years of rubbish. Everyone with half a brain cell knows Australia are not going to go to the bottom of the pack even if they do start losing the occasional series.

I've never said any of them are crap apart from Hogg and occasionally Watson with the ball. I've called one a flat-track bully, another one a poor captain but good leader, and a few others past their prime - that doesn't mean I think they're crap. Get over it mate - Australia shouldn't want to make itself like the USA who probably hold a tickertape parade everytime the Dream Team beats Senegal. If you are some sort of juggernaut of patriotism, maybe you'd want your country to smash the crap out of every opponent you come across, but if you like the sport more than the team that plays it, then you want competition. I'm the latter.

Australia can win every match till the day I die for all I care - as long as each one of those matches comes down to the final overs I'm happy win lose or draw. The fact that I don't jump up and down like a spoilt 2 year old demanding that my country's cricket team win everything they play by the length of the straight doesn't make me any less of an Australian, or any less of a cricket fan. I like Lara more than Hayden - please don't lock me up next door to Paris Hilton for having different taste to the next bloke.

You say you wish your national team dominated like Australia's - fair enough, but the fact is they don't, and one day when they do, and they are hammering everyone, you'll probably long for a series of genuine quality too.

Posted by: Sam on May 7, 2007 1:38 PM

By the way, I don't identify my nationality by what sporting team I support. I am Australian and love my country because I believe in sticking up for your mates and family, and giving people a fair go, and standing up for what's right, and being a free society, not because a few guys can throw a leather f#$%ing ball down a strip of grass better than the next bloke.

I think if you take a sport seriously enough to let it define your identity and nationality you have bigger problems than where youe next win is coming from.

Posted by: Sam on May 7, 2007 2:13 PM

Sam, I reckon most people in the world feel the way you do. There's nothing remotely Australian about it.

Phil Sargeson, there's more than 20 million people in Australia. If somebody bags (say) Hayden when he fails, and says he should be sacked, and somebody else praises him when he scores a 100, or rubbishes the coach during a dry spell (or whatever), that's not hypocrisy. It's a difference of opinion. I know all you South Africans all think exactly alike, but that's unusual. Really.

As far as the topic goes; Australia are not going to fall too far. Only three or four countries give a real stuff about cricket, and none of them throw money at sport like Australia does. I can see England being the top country (briefly) within a couple of years. They have much greater bowling depth than Australia (I'd take S.Jones, Flintoff, Harmison, Hoggard, Panesar, Broad, Plunkett, Anderson etc over Lee, Tait, Johnson, Macgill, Clark & Hilfenhaus), and better young batsmen. Alistair Cook is what, 21, and has scored four centuries. He'll be the best bat in the world in a few years. Ian Bell is younger than anybody in the Australian test team too. I don't think England will dominate as Australia has, though.

Australia's batting is strong, and there are plenty of good hitters around. I reckon they'll continue to be the best (or close to) one-day team for a while. Bowlers are a waste of space in that game...

Posted by: Osmond on May 7, 2007 2:58 PM

Sam, your posts prove my point about the spoilt nature of the country you have grown up in - even though you claim to follow the Windies is irrelevant in this case.

When the West Indies were dominating no one said a thing, other than, "How do we beat them?"

So while Australia sits there and whinges about having no contests, the rest of the world is saying, "How do we beat these guys."

And if you understand anything about South African history, the moment we start winning and dominating at any sport whether its rugby or cricket, we are grateful. It cheers up a nation that was once the most miserable place to live in - and South Africa's problems were only "minor" compared to its African neighbours.

Australia is spoilt.

What I am calling for is a bit of perspective.

As I have said, everyone would like to se competitive cricket, but I think you have a better chance of seeing George W. Bush declare the War in Iraq was a bad mistake.

Posted by: Phil Sargeson on May 7, 2007 3:30 PM

This is great. I've managed to convince multiple Tonkers that I'm English on the basis of my belief that they might regain the Ashes in 2009. Is an unbiased opinion that rare?

Posted by: Rob on May 7, 2007 3:40 PM

Wiggerism is alive and well in this forum.

Posted by: Stuart Rays on May 7, 2007 3:50 PM

Australia's top dog position depends a lot on how Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Tait and a spinner (I hope its Bailey as I loved the pace bowler leg spinner combo) adapt to test cricket. It is too early to say now. But my suggestion is, to continue blooding these guys in ODI's. We've won the world cup, its time to start slowly building for the future.

Sam, Rob and Phil....now now boys....benno and I have kissed and made up already....

Posted by: Adrian on May 7, 2007 4:52 PM

Sam, when the West Indies were dominating, no one was going on about a "genuine contest series."

Like did you ever see in any newspaper articles longing for a competitive series, I can't remember any.

Most people were wondering, "How do you beat these guys?"

So just because you Australians are longing for a contest, it doesn't mean that we are not either, but with the rest of the world we are not whinging because of a lack of a contest - we are like what everyone else including Australia, wondering how on earth do we beat Ponting's men?

And South Africa, if you are familiar with the terrible history it has, dominating a sport would be a good thing for the country - infact it was the longing for sport that eventually started the end of the aparthieds.

So if South Africa dominates - or maybe even Bangladesh for that matter (it could happen, maybe not in my life time - but who knows) - then you can hardly blame us we say would relish it. If no one can beat us, then thats their tough luck. The Windies had the same attitude, and you can't blame the Australian side for feeling that way either.

As for my identity problems, blow it out your backside honey! And it wasn't even the point of what I was making - my point is, if another country was dominating no one give a crap. If it was England or us, or Sri Lanka, you wouldn't be going on about longing for a decent contest.

But interestingly enough because its Australia, you have a problem with having a national team that at present is almost unbeatable in cricket. And that is funny. Really it is. Almost ridiculous.

If you can't handle some one giving it back because you don't like to be wrong or anyone criticising your views, or disagreeing with you - thats your problem. As I have read some of your posts, you're pretty good at dishing it out Sam but you can't take it back.

As for me, I am quite comfortable with who I am, and cricket is just a past time - my wife, my kids and my mates help form my indentity mate! Like I said, we would relish it, taking in to account the shit recent history South Africa endured. Keep it in perspective dude. Australia is, to quote Midnight Oil, a lucky country.

Posted by: Phil Sargeson on May 7, 2007 11:58 PM

Australia is spoilt.

What I am calling for is a bit of perspective.

As I have said, everyone would like to se competitive cricket, but I think you have a better chance of seeing George W. Bush declare the War in Iraq was a bad mistake.

Posted by: Phil Sargeson at May 7, 2007 3:30 PM

You don't get it do you? It is sport - sport, Phil, not life or death. Spoilt? Because our cricket team wins? If that is your definition of spoilt, you must lead a very shallow life. I love my cricket, would watch the St Patrick's Under 13 B's if it were being played across the road, but it isn't life or death and I don't see why I should feel spoilt because our national team wins a lot. I'm more proud of what Steve Waugh has done in Indian orphanages than anything he ever did on the field.

Maybe there is no chance of any competitive matches in the near future - that's a shame, but I'm neither going to cry myself to sleep or bow down to a Matthew Hayden statue as a result of such lopsided cricket.

And Osmond, I know anyone with a bit of patriotism from any other country feels the same way I do, and those characteristics aren't exclusively Australian - my point was simply that I don't feel a warm glow because my national cricket team is great, rather because my country is a great one.

The bottom line is, I can't believe this has started all from the simple wish that a really top game of cricket might be played in the near future. All I said was that I wanted to watch a close game and now I'm being lectured about how little I love my country.

Well bugger it. From now on, I hope my Roosters win every game 200-nil, my Cats double what they did to Richmond on Sunday, the Aussies win every test by an innings and 999 runs, Adam Scott to shoot -80 in the US Open, Libby Lenton to swim the 100 in 1.34 seconds, and Lleyton Hewitt to never drop another point in his life. That'll prove my patriotism!

Posted by: Sam on May 8, 2007 9:19 AM

Mitchell Johnson isn't a test cricketer's back-door.

Posted by: Osmond on May 8, 2007 9:36 AM

This Phil vs. Sam argument is quite interesting. Sam puts out commendable sentiments about being even-handed in his views, but from what I read in cricket blogs round the world, as well as here, I have to agree to a certain extent with Phil Sargeson about our attitude to our cricket team.

I don't know quite why this is so, other than the "tall poppy syndrome", but you only have to read or listen to so many sports writers here to see how quick they are to jump on Ponting fro arrogance, but find every excuse in the world for AFL and League players who are are always in some sort of trouble with drugs, inappropriate behavour etc.

Look at SMH's Peter Fitzsimmons' TFF column this past weekend. Printed some letter crowing about how the Sri lankans all showed respect by all tipping their caps to officials at the World Cup presentation and the poor-spirited Aussies didn't - only thing was, most of the Sri Lankans weren't wearing caps! I checked the video I had taped of the event and most just shook hands like the Ausssies did. And why would you tip your cap anyway to Tony Crozier, the "official"? Not only is he cricket commentator, (is it considered to tip your cap to cricket commentatlors-perhaps Fitzsimmons was envious) but he was informally dressed and didn't take his hat off either.

But so keen was Fitzsimmons to leap at this little made-up "slur" on the Aussies and turn it in to something negative, that he didn't even bother to check if it was true!

Acutally, I'm surprised at how many of the posts here are supportive of our team. compared to othere blogs. I'm not sure why we can't just say our team are great but also would like to see others match their high standards.

Why are they mutually exclusive opinions? And what is wrong with striving for perfection and the "genuine quality" (Sam's term) that the Australian team has, WITHOUT the benefit of really strong oppostion. Why is it only valid to people like Sam if the other team has it too? Why is it so boring to see excellence, even is only one team is playing to it? Is Australia suppoesed to drop its standards simply to accomodate "tight" finishes, so that the oppostion can feel okay? And fans can get a cheap thrill?

Posted by: Rusty on May 8, 2007 10:43 AM

Phil of South Africa, 10 points for mentioning "Lucky Country" by the oils, ( I think they were being sarcastic but after 200 odd years of colonisation we're certainly "luckier" than SA. ) They did all there best work prior to "Red Sails".

No doubt you noticed that Cullen Bailey, in the pic with snappy black shirt and red collar, bears a more than passing resemblance to Mick Jones of The Clash.

Sam, I'd like Geelong to beat West Coast by a 100 but I draw the line at Llllleyton.

Posted by: Pope Paul VII on May 8, 2007 10:58 AM

Again Sam, you have missed the point of my post - do I need to write it out in capitals!

And obviously you missed the part about my family and friends meaning more to me than anything. My life is quite good and I don't need to justify myself to you, but thanks for trying to evaluate my life from a mere post!

And I don't care whether you are a self professed one eyed Windies fan watching Kanga cricket at the local park next to the cornershop singing, "C'mom Aussie!"

Stop being so one eyed with you views and aim to deliver a post with a balanced perspective!

And I find it interesting both you and Rob have dodged the question of whether or if another country was dominating and not Australia, you would not be complaining or whinging. The mere fact you can not respond to that highlights my point on "spoilt" very clearly.

What you have nothing to say in that regard?

This is exactly what I am getting at. Its not life and death for me, I accepted a long time ago South Africa have little to know chance of ever being the top force in international cricket. And that international cricket is likely to return to being a swan dance between Australia and England, with the rest of the world falling away.

I agree on the arguement with contests, who doesn't want to see a contest, but on the flip side of that you can not see my view - I find that one eyed and ignorant.

Australia has the best resources in just about every aspect of life, and not just sport. The fact your country has the best facilities that enables your country to remain more than competitive in world sport and the kids benefit from far more than kids in African countries including South Africa.

You have the best prospects of employment, a stable economy, and even your poverty line has access to financial support and income via charities who can freely attend to your needy and get them back on track. You can't blame some one from the otherside of the world looking from the outside in saying, geez, get a grip, enjoy whatever prosperity you have!

Only a spoilt country would that is good enough.

And isn't Australia a democracy - not so when you some challenges your view.

I might as well say beat on the brat with a baseball bat!

Anyway back to the cricket, Go Australia!

Posted by: Phil Sargeson on May 8, 2007 11:18 AM

Why are they mutually exclusive opinions? And what is wrong with striving for perfection and the "genuine quality" (Sam's term) that the Australian team has, WITHOUT the benefit of really strong oppostion. Why is it only valid to people like Sam if the other team has it too? Why is it so boring to see excellence, even is only one team is playing to it? Is Australia suppoesed to drop its standards simply to accomodate "tight" finishes, so that the oppostion can feel okay? And fans can get a cheap thrill?

Posted by: Rusty at May 8, 2007 10:43 AM

Please point out to me where I said I wanted to see Australia drop it's standards in order to see a contest? This is the last I'll say on the issue.

I WANT TO WATCH CLOSE CRICKET GAMES. PLEASE DON'T LOCK ME IN JAIL, OR NAIL ME TO A CROSS, OR ACCUSE ME OF TREASON FOR THIS SIMPLE WISH. ALTHOUGH I LOVE THE IDEA OF SEEING CRICKET GAMES DECIDED IN THE FIRST 3 OVERS EVERY DAY FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE, JUST ONE SMALL PART OF ME LIKES THE GAME ENOUGH THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO SEE A CLOSE CONTEST. PLEASE DON'T HATE ME, EVEN THOUGH IT IS QUITE OBVIOUSLY THE SENTIMENTS OF A TRAITOR AND A SCUMBAG TO DESIRE A CLOSE GAME. I SHOULD REALLY ALSO TAKE BACK MY DESIRE TO SEE A GREAT STATE OF ORIGIN SERIES - INSTEAD, I HOPE THAT NSW DROP THE BALL EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY GET IT, AND THAT THEY CONCEED 15 PENALTY TRIES. APPARENTLY IT'S NOT OK TO WANT TO SEE A QUALITY MATCH, RATHER YOU HAVE TO SIMPLY BASK IN THE GLORY OF UNCHALLENGED VICTORY. LET US NEVER SPEAK OF THIS AGAIN.

Seriously, why are people getting bagged because they don't worship our cricket team? If you're going to bag someone, why not bag someone who doesn't even have the good sense to follow the game and appreciate how good we are at it?
I might not desire domination at all costs but at least I can appreciate how good our team is.

Pope, I'd settle for one point over the Coast this weekend.

Posted by: Sam on May 8, 2007 11:27 AM

Sorry, I mean't to say, only a spoilt country would that is not good enough.

Cricket is likely to remain lopsided for the next 20 years, so you either have to deal with it or quit watching the game.

Phil, I'm not sure why you have such a bee in your bonnet. I haven't noticed Sam or Rob whinging or complaining because Australia are a dominant cricket team. Can you point out a couple of examples, please?

Posted by: Osmond on May 8, 2007 11:35 AM

I am staying out this one, but its piss funny to read!

Lets just say I can see where everyone is coming from.

Close contest great, yes! I want that. We all want that, we all want something like that, whatever that is.

Yes, Australian's have a tendency to support other sides other than their own - I support Zimbabwe in the cricket.

But I also see that when the Windies were dominating, no one was worrying about a decent contest because there basically was no contest. And Australia's best bowlers were bowling in a rebel South Africa tour at the time, and I am talking about one Terry Alderman and Carl Rackeman.

And yes we do live in a lucky country, but I can see where Phil is coming from - we don't live or have not lived in a country with economic sanctions and aparthieds. I can understand why sport would bring joy to people in such situations.

I haven't lived in a country like that.

And a hundred points to the Pope for mentioning the Clash, the best punk rock band of all time. The only true punk band to have ever existed - but thats for another blog somewhere else.

Posted by: Nowhere Man on May 8, 2007 11:58 AM

Phil, I've done nothing different in assuming things about you from a "mere post" to what you have done throughout your argument. If a team from another country dominated and was just unchallenged in every game they played, of course I would get sick of it. Do I have to write it in capitals as well? I like watching good cricket games. If a team is winning every single match they play, but they are all close games, I'm happy, simple.

Yes we are a democracy. I'm grateful for what we have. What we have doesn't have sweet f$#5 all to do with our cricket team. I'm all for people being jealous of Australia, but for God's sake get some persepective and be jealous of our RIGHT TO PLAY SPORT rather than how good we are at it.

I seriously am struggling to come to grips with your agenda. People like myself and Rob have given an objective view to every issue that comes up on this blog. We bag Australia when they deserve it, praise them when they deserve it, wrap other teams when they deserve it, and bag other teams when they deserve it. We have both stated that we have no overwhelming desire to see a sporting team win at all costs - I don't see what your problem is. Like I said, I'm prouder of Steve Waugh's charity work than his cricketing. Cricket is not the be all and end all, and again, the right to play it is more important than how good people are at it. I'm not a foreign diplomat, nor am I the Australian coach or a commentator. I;m an Australian civilian who likes a sport and all of a sudden I'm being told all these things about not appreciating my country etc.

Totally over this. Can we have a real issue to talk about please Mr Tonk?

Posted by: Sam on May 8, 2007 12:04 PM

Osmond, just read what is already on here ...

There is no bee in my bonnet.

The fact they can not respond to, if it was another country dominating for as long as Australia has, no one would be saying a thing, is quite interesting.

And Sam, I don't worship anything. Certainly not sportsmen, and I am not saying you have to worship the Australian side - and certainly not Hayden! That is really lowering your standards!

Its a little word called appreciation that is missing in a lot of blogs on here. Gee, I wonder what you lot would say if there was a rapid decline in Australian cricket and they were as bad as they were in the 80's.

And you're not the only one - there is quite a few of you on here. Some like Warren Cooper abd Peter Warrington are calling for World Series Cricket ...

Posted by: Phil Sargeson on May 8, 2007 12:13 PM

I've got mixed views on this; on one hand I agree with Rusty's & Phil's view that we treat Australia's success strangely. We are quick to call our team arrogant and jump on Ponting et al for their behaviour. I also agree with Rob's & Sam's view that a better contest makes better cricket.

I want Australia to win every time, don't get me wrong, but I do believe that total domination is bad for the game as a whole. My fear is that if it continues then some of the traditional nations such as the Windies & England may never be competitive again. These countries are struggling for cricket to remain a force and the more they get continually thrashed the less likely kids are going to want to play and therefore they have a smaller talent pool to select from.

This is not Australia's fault of course and I don't know what the answer is, but total domination by one team for an extended period of time cannot be healthy in my opinion. We saw after the 2005 ashes that interest here in Australia (and in England) suddenly sky-rocketed again, junior cricket registrations went up, test matches sold out well in advance etc. And that was because all of a sudden someone had challenged the Aussies.

People enjoy a contest, you play sport for the thrill of the victory and that thrill is extended when you have to really fight for it. If that challenge isn't there then people won't bother and I would hate to see people not bothering with cricket anymore.

Posted by: Benno on May 8, 2007 1:01 PM

"And I find it interesting both you and Rob have dodged the question of whether or if another country was dominating and not Australia, you would not be complaining or whinging. The mere fact you can not respond to that highlights my point on "spoilt" very clearly."

Phil, I've dodged it because it's a non-issue. I only initially replied because I was a bit miffed about being called out this. I still don't really get it. Let's be friends.

Posted by: Anonymous on May 8, 2007 1:25 PM

Great, I wasted an hour trying to clear my name and none of my posts went up.

Nevertheless, I'm with Rob - I didn't respond to the question about other nations dominating because it is a non-issue - I've said 100 times I want to see a contest, not continual one sided thrashings. I thought that would have made my stance on any nation dominating ridiculously frequently pretty clear.

Posted by: Sam on May 8, 2007 3:42 PM

Phil v Sam

Ahhhh!! ( happy sigh ) What a great game Cricket is.

P.S Bring back the Hill

Posted by: scott on May 8, 2007 10:09 PM

Whatever Sam, of course you would say that ... but I do doubt it for some reason. Whatever doesn't make you sound like an idiot right. I applaud Benno and Rusty who was able to see what I was saying.

But I am prepared to move on. I have stirred up enough trouble - I'm sorry for any offence caused. I'm sorry I expressed an obviously bad opinion.

Competitive cricket, all in favour, say I. Do I hear the ICC in that?

Posted by: Phil Sargeson on May 9, 2007 12:04 AM

Why are some people down on Australia for being so good? How about getting stuck into the rest of the world (including Sam's precious Windies) for being dog-awful.

And the bad World Cup wasn't all the ICC's fault. Step up India and Pakistan. The two countries that have prentensions to dominate the sport off the field could not make the Super 8 - rendering many games meaningless.

Before we start criticising a team that won everyone game by at least 50 runs or seven wickets we should start on the so-called cricketing powers that let them dominate so easily.

Posted by: The Colonel on May 9, 2007 7:14 AM

How about getting stuck into the rest of the world (including Sam's precious Windies) for being dog-awful.

And the bad World Cup wasn't all the ICC's fault. Step up India and Pakistan. The two countries that have prentensions to dominate the sport off the field could not make the Super 8 - rendering many games meaningless.

Before we start criticising a team that won everyone game by at least 50 runs or seven wickets we should start on the so-called cricketing powers that let them dominate so easily.

Posted by: The Colonel at May 9, 2007 7:14 AM

Yeah, coz I've never bagged them, and I do play with myself over how much I like them (I fail to see how "if anything I lean towards the West Indies" equates to "Sam's Precious Windies.) - I just put all their poor performances down to bad luck....

Whatever Sam, of course you would say that ... but I do doubt it for some reason. Whatever doesn't make you sound like an idiot right. I applaud Benno and Rusty who was able to see what I was saying.
Posted by: Phil Sargeson at May 9, 2007 12:04 AM

Of course you would doubt it, because quite obviously I'm a liar and everything I have written was written exclusively to shut you up, that's why I only replied 100 times.....

I don't write opinion to sound right. I write it because it's my opinion and I believe it is right - that obviously won't always be the case because opinions are just that - a point of view. But I'm not going to sit here and have someone tell me what I should and shouldn't think, and that I "should" think such and such, especially when it comes to sport. If I was being lectured about how I should feel on the Holocaust or something, then fine, but it is a sport, and the point of sport is first and foremost to enjoy watching and playing it. If you get anything more out of it than a bit of enjoyment and some banter, then you probably take it too seriously.

At the end of the day, there is no way I want to see any team - Australia, West Indies or otherwise, smashing other teams over and over again, especially inept ones that make the smashings look even more impressive. I don't hold it against Australia that they have no real opposition - it's not their fault, and good luck to them.

To conclude this stupid and pointless argument which I have admittedly been a main protagonist of, I like cricket, I like watching good players play against good players, and I can appreciate everything the Australians achieve, just as I can appreciate everything other good players achieve. If people think I should feel anything more than that over a sport, then they can go f$#@ emselves.

Posted by: Sam on May 9, 2007 9:46 AM

My point is you are completely oblvious to others points of views - its alright for you to brand me an idiot and to tell me to go and F**k my self, which kind of tells me a lot about you.

I didn't realise I was arguing with a 5 year old - I thought I was having a discussion with an adult, sorry I got that impression wrong.

You know what, I apologised for my remarks and I am not taking my apology back, but the least you can do is take my offer for peace ... instead you decide to keep up the attack.

I don't care about what you think, I was throwing in a red herring and you completely missed the point because you are so one eyed with your views. Its not about telling you what to think Sam, its about open mindedness and good healthy discussion.

Like I said, you are good at attacking the view of others, when yours is challenged, someone is trying to tell you what to think ... Seriously, grow up!

My second call, all those in favor of competitive cricket, say I. Do I hear Robert Mugabe stepping down?